I totally agree with this statement. They remove cosmetic fixer from the market and add decent move in ready homes.
A cosmetic fixer that someone could have bought in for less and done the work themselves and not have to have paid for the flippers work and profit margin. They could have used ‘sweat equity’ instead. This flipper prevented someone who could have bought in more safely at a lower price, from buying a house affordably.
This does not take into account that the work that some flippers do is so cosmetic that its only purpose is to increase the ability to increase the price as opposed to a needed fix and adding real value. Some of the ‘improvements’ that a flipper puts in, will needed to be torn out to fix the property. I have also seen where flippers either tear out, paint or destroy good curly or wavy maple in the process of doing the flip.
A flipper also has an advantage as to risk. They can buy the property they are going to flip using a corporation, while the person buying to live can’t. This gives protection to the flipper if it goes bad. The corporation gets dissolved and the flipper’s personal finances are not affected. This is different for the end buyer.
